Skepticism

Subscribe to Blog via Email

EVENTS

What is a prayer?

I’ve heard a number of explanations: it’s a private conversation with the supernatural emperor of the universe, or possibly a moment of communion with all-that-is, or even just a quiet personal centering of the self. These are all lies. As we all know, prayer is actually an opportunity to posture publicly, promoting one’s own piety.

We have another example to illustrate the accuracy of my definition. Phoenix had a request from the Satanists to be allowed to give an opening prayer at council meetings, and the council struggled with their decision — whether to allow a Satanic prayer, which would cause a huge outcry from fanatical Christians; to prohibit certain faiths from participation, which would clearly violate the separation of church and state and lead to lawsuits; or to simply stop the prayer nonsense altogether, and instead have a moment of silence, in which individuals could freely have a private conversation with god, commune with all-that-is, center their self, or whatever.

The majority of the council seem sensible and are willing. But others are willingly validating my theory that prayer is about loudly and publicly pronouncing the depth of their faith, and are melting down at the idea that they can’t get any more brownie points with the gods by babbling at others.

The objections have been emotional, loud and generally ignorant. Christians are pushing for their right to pray, but they don’t seem to understand the fact they can’t allow their prayers while banning others. The Phoenix council had an option of either allowing the alternate prayers, or banning them while facing a First Amendment-based lawsuit that is practically a guaranteed loss for them. They chose a third option of banning all prayer (the best option) completely. Now they are being threatened with even more lawsuits from Christians that want to insert religion into government – as long as it’s only Christian religion.

Interestingly, Jesus* was on your side on this one, and said prayer should be a private and secret thing:

“…when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. 6 But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen.” – Matthew 6:5

*as depicted in the Bible in the quote here. I’m not opining on his existence or divinity or the accuracy of the quote, just noting that from within their own framework Christians ought to be avoiding practicing and advocating for public prayer.

These guys in the council are confusing the ceremonial function with something that actually petitions some higher power of some sort.
This “prayer” in their event serves the same purpose my frequently-atheist mother described for the “blessing” before a meal: It gets everybody to sit down and shut up and marks the point before which it’s not permitted to grab any food.
Personally, if they want something at that point in their meetings, I think they should devise a group cheer.

5″When you pray, you are not to be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners so that they may be seen by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. 6″But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you.…

Singham linked to a Tucson News story which quoted the invocation that The Satanic Temple’s rep would have given.

“Let us stand now, unbowed and unfettered by arcane doctrines born of fearful minds in darkened times. Let us embrace the Luciferian impulse to eat of the Tree of Knowledge and dissipate our blissful and comforting delusions of old. Let us demand that individuals be judged for their concrete actions, not their fealty to arbitrary social norms and illusory categorizations. Let us reason our solutions with agnosticism in all things, holding fast only to that which is demonstrably true. Let us stand firm against any and all arbitrary authority that threatens the personal sovereignty of One or All. That which will not bend must break, and that which can be destroyed by truth should never be spared its demise. It is Done. Hail Satan.”

or even just a quiet personal centering of the self
QFT
I’ve always wondered why prayer is (required) to be public. Have to pray with a group in a special building once a week, to prove you pray. Everyday in school at the start of class. Before every sports game to pray for the opposing team to lose. At the start of every town meeting, and the start of every Congress session and POTUS inauguration. Etc Etc Etc, [and instead of sending help to people who need help, they will fall back on “saying prayers” as their supposed method of “helping”]

No one says it is wrong to privately pray, but it is strongly implied. I suspect prayer is the desperation of very insecure people. All politickians [sic] always close their speeches with the line,”God Bless America”, which I understand as a desperate plea, cuz what their speech was about won’t help, so God is the only possible help. (and we know how good he is at that /snark).

ahem
prayer is meditation. not a lie. using prayer other than meditation IS a lie.

“The attitude in some quarters these days is, ‘Don’t just pray; do something about it,”‘ Ryan said at the annual National Prayer Breakfast. “The thing is, when you are praying, you are doing something about it. You are revealing the presence of God.”

re @6:
ooohhh, interesting quote often disregarded by the religiots, which they should respect and follow.
yet spooky when read just after release of Spotlight,
which is about “fathers” meeting with boys, alone, in “secret rooms”, to give the boys “a reward” in secret. ewwwww

I think “sincere Satanists” are just as goofy as the guys wearing dresses and poofing bread and wine into meat and blood, or any other religionists for that matter. But I get the impression that these Satanists may really be atheists who have found an excellent angle for effectively exposing the hypocrisy and blatant constitutional violations committed by today’s Christians and forcing action.

In Germany we just say “Guten Appetit!” or “Mahlzeit!” or something similar together and then everyone is allowed to eat :p (I think especially religious families do a prayer thing before the meal as well, but I’ve never personally witnessed it.)
That use of the “blessing” you describe reminds me of those American atheists who try to invent “atheist church” — US life seems so structured around religious observances and institutions, people can come up with some oddly contradictory solutions trying to replicate their social function.

When I sneeze I tend to sneeze three or four times in a row. At work, every time I sneeze not only the guy I share a cube with, but the woman over the wall from me says “bless you” with every sneeze. Something a guy a couple cubes over joins in. Achoo! Bless you. Bless you. Achoo! Bless you. Bless you. Bless you. Achoo! Bless you. Bless you. Achoo! Bless you. Bless you. Bless you. Mildly irritating. I get the impression saying “bless you” is a way to publicize your religiosity much like public prayer.

When the guy in my cube sneezes, sometimes I’ll say “gesundheit”. And if it’s a multiple, I say it only once. German is more effective than a blessing. One “gesundheit” can cover any number of sneezes as long as they all occur within 30 seconds. If the woman over the wall from me sneezes, I don’t care if she sneezes up a lung — she’s on her own.

tsig at #15 — Didn’t you read PZ’s earlier post today? You proclaim its magnificence, mount it, display it in a museum and (a further tidbit in the linked article) insure it for $39,000. And glue it back together if you break it.

rogerfirth@14: “Bless you” has lost its original religious connotation in my circles, where only a small number of us are religious now, and most of us were raised atheist. We also say “Jesus Christ” (abbreviated “criss”), “tabernacle”, and “ostie” which are very much of catholic extraction, but very much not expressions of religiosity.

But I get the impression that these Satanists may really be atheists who have found an excellent angle for effectively exposing the hypocrisy and blatant constitutional violations committed by today’s Christians and forcing action.

I’m amused by the satanists but I’m on the fence about their methods. They’re basically trolling the christians; giving them a taste of their own medicine. But if “we” believe that medicine is inappropriate to give anyone it’s inappropriate to do it to christians, too. I don’t think that anyone who’s using trollish methods is my friend.

For example: I find religious “piss marking” displays to be generally unattractive meaningless wastes of space. It annoys me for the same reason that a Coca-Cola ad in a public park would annoy me: it’s ugly and I don’t like bulk eye-grab marketing. Regardless of the product. So that doesn’t mean I should cheer wildly if Pepsi and McDonald’s sue and get their right to put up billboards, too. Even if the Pepsi billboard is beautifully tasteful: why do I have to see this crap at all?

I’m amused by the satanists’ surrealism and lese-majeste, but I would rather see christian privilege dissected in a way that doesn’t presume we’re arguing over who gets privileged.

See, I’m generally on the “Actually atheist satanism as a funny bundle of humanist ideas and christian-trolling” boat. I don’t know if I’d necessarily identify as one, but thats more because I’m lazy than any moral objection.

I just think life’s too short to not have a laugh at someone terrible’s expense. If I can use their system to get something ridiculous holiday diorama or statue up, more the fool them.

I’ve often wondered how advocates of these sorts of opening prayers justify it in light of Matthew 6:5, but I’ve never actually seen any of them respond when it’s brought up by secularists in threads like these. Has anyone else?

They’re basically trolling the christians; giving them a taste of their own medicine. But if “we” believe that medicine is inappropriate to give anyone it’s inappropriate to do it to christians, too.

Good point. But I view it *slightly* differently. I view them as a device to force everyone to face, acknowledge, and rectify one’s own hypocrisy and faulty thinking. And that’s a good thing. We shouldn’t let hypocrisy stand. They are literally, devil’s advocates.

There may or may not be anything wrong with public prayer. I maybe think it is distasteful but that’s my opinion and I may be wrong. It may be very important to others who maybe are willing to share it equinimitibly. But if one thinks public prayer is good or harmless one must view all religions and lack thereof equally. If one can not do that for satanists then one must admit one is not objective and has a bias. And I’m all for exposing biases and hypocrisies.

The thing is, these satanist never push it past that point. So… I’m pro these Satanists. (Although the ritual on Phelp’s mother’s grave to turn her gay… might have been too much. That maybe in the category of “medicine”. But I’m not sure that was the same group.)

I haven’t, but I assume the idea is that it’s a group ceremony [whose members are all presumed to be christian], so no-one is showing off to anyone else, as such. The expectation is that everyone does it.
It only really becomes a display when there’s someone in the group/audience who *isn’t* christian, which they don’t want to begin with.

@23 I am not a Christian but I’ll hazard a guess. I think you have it backwards.

When Jesus was speaking in Matthew 6, the Sermon on the Mount, he was also talking to people who were all the same religion — and that was Judaism; Matthew 6 isn’t about some people praying loudly to God while some other people would rather pray to Mithras and some other people would rather not pray, everybody in the gospel prays to Abraham’s God, the question is about how proudly or vainly they do it. Matthew 6 is a message to people who are struggling to be the best Jews they can be and to be right with their God; he is not giving advice to a religiously pluralistic society trying to live among other religions.

When he’s talking about people who pray loudly in public you have to relate it to his critique of Pharisees, who, as a character type in the gospel, make a big stink about following all of the mosaic law in excruciating detail, and making public shows of piety. One of Jesus’s famous parables was an argument that a corrupt tax farmer who prays in a humble way is closer to God than a Pharisee who prays publicly and believes himself to be spiritually superior. But it’s a given that both the Pharisee and the Publican, the tax collector, are both Jews.

Matthew 6 can be construed as being a totally in-group injunction: it only applies to Judeo-Christians judging the prayer practices of other Judeo-Christians. And so outside the group, among the heathens and is this time where “Christianity is under attack from all sides,” Christians can be as obstreperous about their prayer (their “witnessing of the Good News”, they’d say) as they please — there’s the whole “Great Commission” thing, where Christians are commanded to evangelize and convert the world.

“have a moment of silence, in which individuals could freely have a private conversation”
As a Dutch teacher in Suriname I’m sometimes amazed how backward the USA can be. This is exactly how we do it on our public school. And we have even Jesus at our side:

If some/all members of the council want a prayer before the meeting, why not do it in a small room somewhere in the building just prior to the public meeting. They will have invoked their imaginary deity, but the public meeting will start with “This meeting is called to order…First item on the agenda is….”
They are too arrogant of their Xianity to understand why they should do that, as my suggestion is voluntary prayer versus an imposed prayer in the public meeting.

woozy@#22: But if one thinks public prayer is good or harmless one must view all religions and lack thereof equally

If one thinks it’s harmful, then inflicting it on others as a way of ‘solving’ christians’ ability to inflict it is simply trading one harm for another.
If one thinks it’s beneficial, then replacing a beneficial and sincere worship with one that’s motivated by sarcasm amounts to removing the benefit and not replacing it.

I doubt very much that anyone takes the satanic invocation seriously, or is uplifted and exalted by it. I actually agree with many of the points behind some satanic philosophies: individualism, rejection of authority, decision for one’s own destiny, etc. But I find it hard to take the satanists’ message seriously in the context in which it’s given because I know they’re just trolling christian privilege and I think they’re being sarcastic not sincere.

As many of us point out: if they sincerely wanted to promote their beliefs, they could pray at home and invite people in and proselytize without demanding a place in the public square. That is exactly the same argument many of us make against christians, after all.

The satanists amuse me, but “the troll of my enemy is not my friend” applies here.

Nerd @#29:If some/all members of the council want a prayer before the meeting, why not do it in a small room somewhere in the building just prior to the public meeting.

That!

If the christian members of the council actually wanted to promote christian values and further their political agenda, they’d meet in secret and collude quietly, like sensible conspirators. Then they’d walk into the meeting and pretend they didn’t even share a common agenda, while dividing up the vote against un-aware and unexpecting secularists. Way to telegraph your punch, christians!!

What they want is to be seen as part of the in-group. That’s it. They want to show that they’re the cool kids and they’re a clique.

If they were good strategists they’d do something like all wear christian T-shirts or dress in uniform or wear great big head-gear (religions seem to love hats! the bigger the hat the closer to god!) They could explore their freedom of speech along the edge-axis of clothing, as countless high school kids have done before.

These christians’ problem isn’t that they’re a bunch of arrogant proselytizing hypocrites: they’re arrogant proselytizing hypocrites with no strategic sense at all.

@ Beatrice #27
It’s a city council meeting: the moment of silence will be the highpoint of the meeting.
.
@ woozy #22

I view them as a device to force everyone to face, acknowledge, and rectify one’s own hypocrisy and faulty thinking.

If that’s the case, they are total failures since all it does is give the Christians a warm fuzzy feeling of being persecuted and reinforces their paranoia. Before they could face and acknowledge something they would have to believe it exists. They don’t. If you don’t believe me, ask on of them.

I’m personally not bothered by whether or not the average Christian person themselves acknowledge the hypocrisy. I mean, I’d like it if they did, but I’d be content with the policy makers realizing that their rules are arbitrary and rife for abuse, and deciding to promote no one’s religion rather than everyone’s.

TLDR: The Satanic Temple are secular humanist who reject the supernatural. I think they are doing an *awesome* job.
At least in Australia however, they would not pass as a tax-exempt religious organization because that explicitly requires belief in a “supernatural being, entity or idea” IIRC (which means: if you are gullible, you pay less taxes >_< )

I mean, I’d like it if they did, but I’d be content with the policy makers realizing that their rules are arbitrary and rife for abuse, and deciding to promote no one’s religion rather than everyone’s.

These are conservative evangelical types; as far as they’re concerned, Christianity is so good, so obvious, and such a benevolent and fundamental force in American culture, anybody who would dare suggest praying to any other God, or no God at all, is simply either an idiot or filled with hate. To people of this turn of mind, “Freedom of Religion” basically means “Everyone must acknowledge the primacy of Christianity in our society, and the prerogative of Christians to rule, and we Christians, in our grace and magnanimity, shall tolerate people of other beliefs, until they accept Jesus Christ.”

You can argue with these people but, even before their belief in Christianity, they have a totally solid worldview that says culture is a thing that must at all times be subject to one religious supremacy or another. So when Satanists want to come in and do a prayer, it’s actually a lot less offensive to their beliefs in a way, because Satanists at least seem to be playing by the same playbook, just with a different God. It’s true that LaVeyan Satanism in this context is just a huge trolling project and not really an affirmative belief in a real Satan, but Christians are happy to take it at its word for the sake of affirming their own beliefs.

What really enrages conservative evangelical types are the people who argue for pluralism and true Freedom of Religion and Conscience, and the primacy of no religion in the state. As far as a lot of conservative Christians are concerned, secularism is just a huge religion that refuses to call itself a religion, and making a government secular is actually “imposing” the “religion” of secularism on Christians. Thus a moment of silence, to a conservative Christian, becomes a prayer to a secular godhead.

At least the Satanists to some extent accept the framing that conservative Christians have laid, and play into the script that Christianity is at war with other faiths.

These people do not think about religion like you or I do, to them, behind every action in life lurks creepy portents and hidden meanings, there’s no such thing as a truly non-religious act, and their belief in a sort of general theory or religiosity is so certain that they assume everyone believes in things like they do, and thus everyone worships a god, notwithstanding what everyone actually says. if you say you’re an atheist, or an agnostic, or you celebrate everyone’s faith, as far as they’re concerned you’re a liar or deluded. And this attitude toward secularism is widely held, all the way from shitkickers in Arizona to Alisdair MacIntyre: Free-thought, rationalism, a belief in human progress, and liberalism form a religious system that threatens Christianity at every turn

Do you sort of sit there and try to beam thoughts at god? Or do you subvocalize a conversation? Is god supposed to be reading our intent and getting strokes from that? (Does he only do that when you’re praying or does he also read when you’re cooking your tax return?) Presumably he’s able to sort heartfelt prayers from the usual opeational stuff like “oh god where are my car keys?”

The only prayer I know is “oh lord if you get me out of this I swear I’ll never do it again!” And it’s worked 5 times out of 6. The 6th time … There were some lawyers involved.

At least the Satanists to some extent accept the framing that conservative Christians have laid, and play into the script that Christianity is at war with other faiths.

I would argue that Christianity has indeed both figuratively and literally been at war with other faiths, among the fundementalists anyways. I’ve seen more than a few “Iraq won’t be free until every mosque is replaced with a church” people.

What I was getting at is that I’m not overly concerned about what super radical fundementalists think. I’m more concerned by what policies are in place.

If forcing through so many nonsense joke religions through the gate makes policy makers stop respecting religions, I’m content with some fundementalists whackjobs feeling vindicated in their victim complex.

public prayer has become or has all ways been a kind of oath of allegiance to god and in this place now in the US the christian god It is comparable to the need for citizens of Rome to acknowledge the Roman gods .
Its directly in conflict with principles on which this countries government was founded. As pragmatic and idealistic men they knew what the history of those who settled here was and the strongly held feeling about themselves that the people had and their differences they understood that unless they wanted to perpetuate conflict amongst themselves certain things were out of bounds. These modern evangelical christians still think they can concur and rule they are a very disruptive element and that is what they intend
this kind of public prayer is foremost a political act and should be and must be resisted.
uncle frogy

I would argue that Christianity has indeed both figuratively and literally been at war with other faiths, among the fundementalists anyways.

Let’s not single anyone out, all three Followers of the Book have been routinely warring amongst themselves and everywhere else for the last 3000 years, when they were not busy killing within their own faiths.

Also “Christian Fundamentalism” is only about a hundred years old, it was invented around the turn of the 20th century mostly in reaction to the evils of “modernism” in general and the widespread acceptance of scientific cosmology and evolution in particular. Fundamentalists make claims that they represent a more pure or original form of their religion, but really the things they believe are ahistorical garbage mostly invented by televangelists and crackpots. I’m happy to lay a lot of blame at their feet for wars of the last few years, particularly as they became so relevant to Republican politics, but we have to be careful not to take their bait and ascribe the actions of people hundreds of years ago to “fundamentalism.” All this does is affirm the false historical narrative that Christians prior to the invention of the radio were or even could be “fundamentalist” in a way that means anything or validates present fundie dogma.

What I was getting at is that I’m not overly concerned about what super radical fundementalists think. I’m more concerned by what policies are in place.

Right, but I’d be concerned that the policies in this instance were simply adopted out of fear of lawsuits, it’s also a policy that neither side sought (at least not in earnest, anyways). When we eliminate prayers from city council meetings we do this to protect religious freedom, it’s not against anyone’s beliefs, it’s really for them in a profound way, it’s supposed to be good for everyone, particularly people who have sincere, deep religious faith. But it’s hard to make that point when the moving party is a group that by its own description is a sham religion that wanted to read a prayer that was, in a way that was patently obvious, pretextual and insincere. I think it was the right solution but it was adopted for purely negative reasons, and that matters.

Also “Christian Fundamentalism” is only about a hundred years old, it was invented around the turn of the 20th century mostly in reaction to the evils of “modernism” in general and the widespread acceptance of scientific cosmology and evolution in particular.

I was more referring to like, “hardcore orthodox” vs “liberal” followers, not specifically referring to the Christian Fundementalist movement. I guess I don’t really get your objection, because reactionary “I don’t like change” reactions that redouble their faith are pretty common in history.

I guess I’m personally not super worked over why the laws respecting religion go away as long as they do. Like, I would draw the line at “laws going away because the government is overthrown” or something, but short of that, I’m not really all that concerned over why they go away. Shoving tons of ostensibly fake but legally qualified religions through the gate seems as valid a means as any.

If mythical beings can read minds and know what followers think, why do they need them to actively say it aloud?

The old fable says when people “sell their souls to the devil,” they strike a bargain and say what they want in return “give the devil their immortal soul”. How is praying to a “god” any different? “Please, cheezus, give me what I want and you can take my soul to heaven when I die!”

We have two kinds of prayer in this country, vertical and horizontal. I approve vertical prayer, which originates with the praying person and is directed straight up to heaven. It is private, as all privileged conversations should be. Horizontal prayer, on the other hand, radiates out from the praying person to all those within earshot. It translates as: I’m going through the motions of praying to God, but actually I’m praying for your benefit. I am expressing solidarity with those who believe as I do, and issuing an implied rebuke to those who don’t. I am an example of how everyone should believe and behave. I believe that Freedom of Speech covers religious expression. But it also covers dissent. Public prayer tends to discourage any differing opinions.

@sigaba #38: you are confusing the Satanic Temple with LaVey Satanism.
Both are atheistic, but the Satanic Temple is humanisic and emphasize science, while LaVey Satanism is fiercely individualistic and emphasize magic. At least LaVeyans seem to be taking themselves very seriously and are definitely no trolls.

I guess I don’t really get your objection, because reactionary “I don’t like change” reactions that redouble their faith are pretty common in history.

Really? The whole point of fundamentalism is to radically change religious practice into something that’s putatively older but’s actually totally innovative and intentionally bizarre, it can’t remotely be characterized as conservative or refractory. Even Catholic “traditionalists” of the last generation have adopted the old Latin mass expressly because it’s different from the mass they grew up with. The “I don’t like change” people were always the enemy of fundamentalism. It’s a small point I admit.

You’re original opinion sorta exemplifies this narrative that’s really deeply embedded into religious discourse presently that says “fundamentalism = traditional = more authentic = more rigorous.” People just take it for granted, and it’s all basically fundie propaganda. The actual conservatives and change-resistors in American Christianity are the people in the mainline denoms who don’t care if gays marry and protested the Iraq war, they have muchmore in common with historical American Christians than a Jerry Falwell, who might as well be from Mars compared to an actual American religious leader, like a Roger Williams. Fundamentalists have been pushing the agenda since the 30s that America was not only always a Christian nation, but that American Christianity has always been synonymous with retrograde, ruralist social conservatism, and this is just a stupendous lie.

@45 You’re correct, there’s a difference between LeVayan Satansim and the Satanic Temple, though I’m pretty sure LeVay has stated that he chose “Satanism” as a name and general aesthetic motive just to annoy Christians. Also they say they’re into magic but I know some Thelemites who might beg to differ.

@45
Nah, the “Magic” in LaVay’s book is totally mundane shit they redefined to sound magical. Like, the first half of the book sets out to define all the “magic” terms in ways that are totally mundane, and the second half is rituals that sound theistic but are actually totally mundane.

IIRC there’s a section that defines a “psychic vampire” as “a shitty friend that manipulates you for support”, so when it gets to the “how to exorcise a psychic vampire” ritual, it’s actually just instructions to purge said people from your life.

It’s pretty blatant religious satire and mockery all the way through, and it makes it very clear that it is not theistic or “magical” in nature.

@48
It’s kinda like how (oblique reference here) Tim and Eric put out a book that’s supposedly for a a trippy Scientology-esque cult. It’s just satire written in the same funky pyramid scheme style as a cult document might read.

So like, yeah. The second half has silly rituals, but its actually just mundane stuff using the pomp and ritual of a religious text.

That use of the “blessing” you describe reminds me of those American atheists who try to invent “atheist church” — US life seems so structured around religious observances and institutions, people can come up with some oddly contradictory solutions trying to replicate their social function.

I think a lot of it has to do with nostalgia for people. I actually kind of enjoyed the atmosphere of catholic church, but not the lies the priest told (also his bungling of theology, but that’s more a metaconcern for me). I assume you weren’t raised religious, so this nostalgia would be totally absent in your case. I personally wouldn’t go to an “atheist church” as you put it, but I could see why others would. I suspect these will essentially be “halfway houses” for those deconvert and will eventually disappear. (Let my know if my presumption about you being raised without religion is wrong: I’m sorry if it was.)

Also, I don’t really see how essentially going to a lecture and singing on Sunday is that contradictory, the only thing that’s really contradictory is the name “atheist church”. (Minor quibble, too: I know of a few secular AI oriented cults, so I don’t really thing “atheist church” is really that contradictory.)

The upshot of this by-turns-amusing-and-pathetic circus is that everyone now knows exactly how to keep Christian prayers out of government proceedings: Lobby your local Satanist group to invite itself along. Even in the most God-sloshed places, at least a few of the locals are bound to grasp the fact that their only three choices are: Satanic plus Christian prayers, Christian prayers only and a lawsuit, or a moment of silence. I’m sure a few municipalities will go ahead defiantly with #2, but after the legal smackdowns that will invariably follow, the rest of them will surely opt for #3. And then some of these demented Christians will finally see that the rest of us really *don’t* care what god you want to yammer at as long as we don’t have to listen to it.

The upshot of this by-turns-amusing-and-pathetic circus is that everyone now knows exactly how to keep Christian prayers out of government proceedings: Lobby your local Satanist group to invite itself along.

What you’re claiming: it takes religion to counter religion, in the USA.

(This appealing to the enemy of your enemy; what could possibly go wrong?)

@Vivec #48: LaVeyans give a lot of emphasis to “magic”, whatever they mean with that, while the Satanic Temple is very clear in its rejection of the supernatural and its embracing of scientific inquiry.
Happy to take your word for LaVeyans being also trolls.

Marcus Ranum#39: If anything God seems to enjoy dazzling his followers by answering their most trivial prayers.
“I couldn’t find a parking space at the supermarket, so I asked for God’s help and one opened up!”
And don’t get me started on those American athletes who beg the creator of the universe to let them or their teams win.

“as long as it’s only Christian religion.” Ah, but which Christian religion? There really is no such thing as THE Christian religion. There are tens of thousands of variants with utterly incompatible theologies.

As I have said many times, Christians have been saying other Christians aren’t really Christians ever since there have been Christians.

I know that you’re being glib when you observe, “What you’re claiming: it takes religion to counter religion, in the USA.” In reality, though, it takes something less than, or at least different from, religion — the mere appearance of same.

I do not believe that it is underhanded to intentionally move to have one’s sectarian prayer introduced into city-council meetings and the like with the real, and patently obvious, ulterior motive of seeing all such prayers tabled. The one guy who was most aggrieved at the Satanists (and is evidently not well loved by his peers, at least in this instance) perfectly demonstrates why: It doesn’t matter what the U.S. Constitution says, or Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli, or reams upon reams of genuine American and Colonial history — lots of Christians really do think, unabashedly and unapologetically, that theirs is in effect the official religion of the United States and that telling them, “If you, then Muslims and Hindus and FSM-ers too” is as straight-up illogical and proposing that churches should only exist in American states beginning with the letters B, E, J, Q, X, Y and Z.

Feelings may be hurt when this tactic is employed to oust sectarian prayer from government proceedings, but when are they not? All I see afoot here is a step toward the restoration of some kind of equilibrium, as dynamic and tenuous as it may be,

I know that you’re being glib when you observe, “What you’re claiming: it takes religion to counter religion, in the USA.” In reality, though, it takes something less than, or at least different from, religion — the mere appearance of same.

Well, sort of. So the status quo is anybody can read a prayer, and the Satanic Temple applies for a slot to read and they get it. The city council assumes they’ll do it once and the whole thing will blow over, which is a reasonable assumption, but as the date starts coming up their phones start ringing off the hook from constituents fingering their rosaries and terrified the Satanists will summon dark forces upon the city of Phoenix (the video in the Washington Post article has all the juicy quotes). And they were adamant that under no circumstance would the Satanic Temple give a convocation prayer.

And that’s exactly what they got. At every point the Xtians were in the drivers’ seat deciding the policy, and though they were constrained by the 1st Amendment, there were alternatives that would have allowed them to continue to pray –they could have just put up with the Satanic Temple a couple times, until they got bored. But that’s not what they did, they were so terrified and offended by the Satanic prayer they went with the only alternative, let no one pray.

It was Akido– Xtian superstition was what effectively squelched Xtian prayer. The dispute wasn’t between Xtians and the Satanic Temple, it was between Xtians and their own nightmares..

@63
I don’t think anyone drew that divide. I draw a distinction between “religion that people follow solely to troll another religions and get secular political change” and “religion that the followers legitimately believe is a real thing”

I did use faux and fake once or twice, but I’m using it as shorthand for “atheistic secular group that legally counts as a religion”.

At my fiercely religious English boarding school, back in the 1970s, we had religious services twice a day, and we were all expected to pray along with the teachers, who all wore expressions of hard concentration. I always felt a bit uncomfortable because something never seemed right. As time went on I began to feel embarrassed by the whole thing, and finally extremely irritated that I was having to participate in the pantomime.
Here were a group of grown up men earnestly trying to send telepathic requests to an invisible, omniscient creator of the Universe, and appearing to genuinely expect this entity to change its plans, just because these men were asking him to.
When religious groups try to publicly ram their prayers down the throats of the rest us, then all they deserve is mockery and ridicule.

With all the prayer there must be terawoos of desires, fantasies, likes, dislikes, hates, and raving gibberish orbiting the planet. This Faerie Cloud — all the new magical thinking being projected into it daily — is a looming environmental problem, reminiscent of DHMO.

Okay, I give up – What’s the difference between a fake religion and a real religion?

For the sake of this argument, the former is expressly a satire. I know Greaves has said that the Temple isn’t totally a satire, or rather it’s satiric mission doesn’t conflict with it’s religious mission, so to speak, but I don’t find the argument completely credible. He gave a long interview to Vice a few years ago and you can make of it what you will. It’s more like an activist group combined with experimental theater, like the Yes Men, a comparison Greaves embraces. Though having said this, I don’t think on that basis they should be barred from leading prayers.

On a more disturbing note, our esteemed SCOTUS has recently begun to distinguish between real belief and not so real belief, in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, wherein, people may believe that they are entitled to birth control, and may feel this strongly, but the employer is not obliged to pay for it, when the employer holds a “deeply-held religious belief.” (Alito in the judgement then goes on to cite Catholic philosophy of sin.)

The premise is that only people who belong to orthodox religions can actually claim to be substantially burdened by laws, and freethinkers and atheists can never credibly claim to be burdened by any policy, because they can’t point to holy books or doctrines that forbid them from doing any particular thing. This is not what Alito says, but such a reading is completely consistent with the argument. As far as the conservatives on SCOTUS are concerned, freedom of religion is the freedom to adhere to dogma, and if you don’t adhere to dogma, your rights are minimal.

I think a lot of it has to do with nostalgia for people. I actually kind of enjoyed the atmosphere of catholic church, but not the lies the priest told (also his bungling of theology, but that’s more a metaconcern for me). I assume you weren’t raised religious, so this nostalgia would be totally absent in your case.

I know that wasn’t directed at me, but that’s definitely a YMMV thing. I was raised in a religious, church-going family. I loathed everything about going to church from the start, used every trick and excuse I could get to work to get out of it every chance I got, and have absolutely no such nostalgia for any aspect of that nonsense.

I was not an out-atheist until I started college (with the only other atheist I’d ever met up to that time; we met at a pre-orientation weekend.) We were evidently the only two people on that fundy campus *ever* who’d openly admitted such a terribly scandalous thing, and we had classmates* constantly coming up to ogle at us like a sideshow and ask those very standard questions that are so old and tiresome. Including all-too-frequently, ”Why do you worship satan?” Trying to explain we didn’t believe in that, either was futile. So I ordered a copy of the satanic bible and carried it around sometimes for fun.

*There were also some people who treated us like human beings instead of dangerous freaks or horned demons. Some still claim me as a friend even now.

@68
Aside from the “I can literally do real life magic” satanists, I think you’d find most will answer “There’s not a fake/real religion divide”, which is precisely why they can demand accommodations the same way christians can despite being ostensibly satirical.